The 10 Most Insane Requirements Of The Green New Deal

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 16, 2013
3,073
1,960
743
33
tractor
#41
Works for the Swiss, they have mandatory conscription for all able bodied men. We can do that here and if we really want to emancipate women, we can include them. Instead of the service, you could choose a peace corp type organization to help impoverished people right here in America.
well if we get rid of the hydrocarbons we won't be able to farm in a modern method. They can either go in the army or go help tend fields to keep the weeds out of them, the only problem is they will have to eat something besides the baloney sandwiches at lunch that we used to get when chopping cotton because they won't be any cows to make the baloney.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,707
8,298
1,743
#42
The 10 Most Insane Requirements Of The Green New Deal
The Green New Deal isn't just un-America, it's also completely bonkers.



By David Harsanyi
FEBRUARY 7, 2019

A number of Democratic Party presidential hopefuls — including Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julián Castro, and Beto O’Rourke, for starters — have already endorsed or expressed support for the “Green New Deal” (GND). Today, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey dropped details about her plan.

It is not hyperbole to contend that GND is likely the most ridiculous and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely because it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also because the societal cost are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing are but trifling projects compared to a plan overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND.

While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:
  • Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.

  • Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy production so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.

  • Eliminate 99 percent of cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.

  • Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.

  • Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?

  • A government-guaranteed job. The bill promises the United States government will provide every single American with a job that includes a “family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and a pension.” You can imagine that those left in the private sector would be funding these through some unspecified “massive” taxation. On the bright side, when you’re foraging for food, your savings will be worthless.

  • Free education for life. GND promises free college or trade schools for every American.

  • A salubrious diet. The GND promises the government will provide “healthy food” to every American (because there are no beans or lettuce in your local supermarket, I guess).

  • A house. The GND promises that the government will provide, “safe, affordable, adequate housing” for every American citizen. I call dibs on an affordable Adams Morgan townhouse. Thank you, Ocasio-Cortez.

  • Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.

  • Bonus insanity: Ban meat. Ocasio-Cortez admits that we can’t get zero emissions in 10 years “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” The only way to get rid of farting cows is to get rid of beef.
The GND uses the word “massive” to explain the size “investments” (formerly known as “taxes”) 13 times. How will we pay for this plan? “The same way we did the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailouts and extend quantitative easing,” say Markey and Cortez, who earned her degree in economics at an institution of higher learning that should be immediately decertified. The plan itself seems to insinuate that billionaires can pay for the whole thing. Of course, best case scenario, it is estimated that instituting a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent would raise a little more than $700 billion over that decade. She does not explain how we’re going to raise the other 20 bazillion dollars it will cost to deconstruct modernity.

Cortez and Markey claim that 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal. I’m not sure where that number is derived. But ask them again when government agents come to take out their water heater.
I just read this list to my 11 yr old daughter and 15 yr old son. I phrased the reading as a question... are these smart and sustainable choices for America? They both laughed at literally every point and asked if this was a joke. They both said there is virtually no way that any government could afford to put a plan like this in to place.
 
Nov 16, 2013
3,073
1,960
743
33
tractor
#43
I just read this list to my 11 yr old daughter and 15 yr old son. I phrased the reading as a question... are these smart and sustainable choices for America? They both laughed at literally every point and asked if this was a joke. They both said there is virtually no way that any government could afford to put a plan like this in to place.
they won't be laughing when she drafts them into the Organic Farming Corps, unless they don't want to work.
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,309
366
163
48
Boulder, CO
#45
So what happens when you are unwilling to work and a dissenter?
In other words, if you thought food stamps going up 60% under Obama, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
  • Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,016
7,698
1,743
Fairfield, CT
#46
In other words, if you thought food stamps going up 60% under Obama, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
  • Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.
Was there any specific reference in the GND to gulags for dissenters/objectors?
 
Jul 20, 2018
585
165
43
Oklahoma City
#47
well if we get rid of the hydrocarbons we won't be able to farm in a modern method. They can either go in the army or go help tend fields to keep the weeds out of them, the only problem is they will have to eat something besides the baloney sandwiches at lunch that we used to get when chopping cotton because they won't be any cows to make the baloney.
Tofuloney sandwiches maybe?

Yum Yum!
 
Jul 20, 2018
585
165
43
Oklahoma City
#48
The mysterious case of AOC’s scrubbed 'Green New Deal' details
by Susan Ferrechio
| February 09, 2019 02:56 PM
| Updated Feb 09, 2019, 04:29 PM

On Feb. 5, the congressional office of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a new blog entry under “energy issues” detailing her "Green New Deal" proposal and answering “frequently asked questions.”

The page, announcing an 8:30 a.m. launch on Feb. 7, is now gone, and a top adviser suggested Friday it was actually authored and distributed by the GOP.

By the afternoon of Feb. 7, Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., removed the document from her website without explanation but following backlash and even ridicule over the radical plans outlined within it, including a call to "eliminate emissions from cows or air travel" — which would functionally ban the latter — and to provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

The document vanished just hours after Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., formally unveiled a "Green New Deal" resolution that has so far attracted 67 Democratic co-sponsors in the House. It’s a nonbinding measure that is less detailed than the now-deleted FAQ document but calls for a complete and speedy overhaul of the nation’s energy, transportation, and farming sectors in order to eliminate carbon emissions in the coming decades.
The communications staff has so far not responded to an inquiry about the now-missing blog post.

But on Saturday morning, chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti tweeted that the FAQ page was indeed posted by the Ocasio-Cortez staff but was done so in error. He called the page "an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake (idea was to wait for launch, monitor q's, and rewrite that FAQ before publishing)."

Ocasio-Cortez later Saturday admitted the same, tweeting at a Washington Post reporter, "There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There's also draft versions floating out there."

A policy adviser to Ocasio-Cortez, though, told Fox News Friday night that the claims were some kind of hoax perpetuated by Republicans.

Robert Hockett, professor of law and finance at Cornell University, appearingon "Tucker Carlson Tonight," called the contents of the now-missing blog post “some kind of document that somebody other than us has been circulating.”
Hockett said Ocasio-Cortez does not endorse the idea of paying people “unwilling to work” and does not want to ban airplane travel.

He said Ocasio-Cortez “tweeted it out to laugh at it.”

He added, “It seems apparently some Republicans have put it out there.”
Hockett may have been referring to the Ocasio-Cortez Friday tweet of a doctored version of the blog post by frequent tweeter and humorist David Burge and others that called for recycling urine to conserve water.

“When your #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.


Ocasio-Cortez again referred to "doctored versions" in her Saturday tweet, though she did not address why the original post on her website, which initially said "we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast" and was apparently later updated to instead include the emissions language, was edited and removed.

Chakrabarti tweeted a link Saturday to the green economy group New Consensus, which has authored an "explainer" of the Green New deal. "Don't worry," New Consensus tweeted. "Policy deets are coming."

As for the blog post, it has not been restored to her congressional website as of Saturday morning but is available via archive and its text saved online.

There are no new entries under the site’s “Energy Issues” section, just a picture of an oil rig, where the post once appeared. The page at the original web address for the post says "Page Not Found."
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#49
how in the world does she think people will heat their homes without oil/gas? Electricity?

Where will the electricity come from?

inquiring minds want to know
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,309
366
163
48
Boulder, CO
#50
The mysterious case of AOC’s scrubbed 'Green New Deal' details
by Susan Ferrechio
| February 09, 2019 02:56 PM
| Updated Feb 09, 2019, 04:29 PM

On Feb. 5, the congressional office of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a new blog entry under “energy issues” detailing her "Green New Deal" proposal and answering “frequently asked questions.”

The page, announcing an 8:30 a.m. launch on Feb. 7, is now gone, and a top adviser suggested Friday it was actually authored and distributed by the GOP.

By the afternoon of Feb. 7, Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., removed the document from her website without explanation but following backlash and even ridicule over the radical plans outlined within it, including a call to "eliminate emissions from cows or air travel" — which would functionally ban the latter — and to provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

The document vanished just hours after Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., formally unveiled a "Green New Deal" resolution that has so far attracted 67 Democratic co-sponsors in the House. It’s a nonbinding measure that is less detailed than the now-deleted FAQ document but calls for a complete and speedy overhaul of the nation’s energy, transportation, and farming sectors in order to eliminate carbon emissions in the coming decades.
The communications staff has so far not responded to an inquiry about the now-missing blog post.

But on Saturday morning, chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti tweeted that the FAQ page was indeed posted by the Ocasio-Cortez staff but was done so in error. He called the page "an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake (idea was to wait for launch, monitor q's, and rewrite that FAQ before publishing)."

Ocasio-Cortez later Saturday admitted the same, tweeting at a Washington Post reporter, "There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There's also draft versions floating out there."

A policy adviser to Ocasio-Cortez, though, told Fox News Friday night that the claims were some kind of hoax perpetuated by Republicans.

Robert Hockett, professor of law and finance at Cornell University, appearingon "Tucker Carlson Tonight," called the contents of the now-missing blog post “some kind of document that somebody other than us has been circulating.”
Hockett said Ocasio-Cortez does not endorse the idea of paying people “unwilling to work” and does not want to ban airplane travel.

He said Ocasio-Cortez “tweeted it out to laugh at it.”

He added, “It seems apparently some Republicans have put it out there.”
Hockett may have been referring to the Ocasio-Cortez Friday tweet of a doctored version of the blog post by frequent tweeter and humorist David Burge and others that called for recycling urine to conserve water.

“When your #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.


Ocasio-Cortez again referred to "doctored versions" in her Saturday tweet, though she did not address why the original post on her website, which initially said "we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast" and was apparently later updated to instead include the emissions language, was edited and removed.

Chakrabarti tweeted a link Saturday to the green economy group New Consensus, which has authored an "explainer" of the Green New deal. "Don't worry," New Consensus tweeted. "Policy deets are coming."

As for the blog post, it has not been restored to her congressional website as of Saturday morning but is available via archive and its text saved online.

There are no new entries under the site’s “Energy Issues” section, just a picture of an oil rig, where the post once appeared. The page at the original web address for the post says "Page Not Found."
It took them 4 days to come up with this?
 

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
12,506
8,602
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
#58
I have several very far left leaning relatives and friends on Facebook who were praising the Green Dream on the day it was posted. Now AOC is trying to call a lot of that a hoax perpetrated by Rebublicans and that she tweeted out to laugh at it? She should be embarrassed for that BS CYA and they should be embarrassed for praising that ridiculousness in the first place.

One of my good friends got on a mutual friends post to tell her how ridiculous the plan was and got shouted down into oblivion by her and her other facebook followers. Joke's on them.